Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 16, 2010 1:30am-2:00am PST

2:30 am
in any illegal enterprises related to operating the massage the establishment. this will help to exist -- encouraging an existing business to remain in the area. this concludes my presentation and i am happy to answer any questions. >> the evening, commissioners. i represent perfect health center, the project's sponsor in this matter. your planning staff has made a comprehensive presentation about this matter.
2:31 am
she explained our proposed use. i wanted to take the opportunity to thank her for her hard work and diligence. we are asking to reconfigure the existing floor plan. the current mix is different than what she have a plan for when she started his business. when she started, she anticipated the that she would have a massage a customer's account about 70% -- foot massage customer's account for 70% body massage account for
2:32 am
30%. the actual split is the other way around. she has approximately 34% foot massage customers. body massage customer's account for about 65%. this mismatch leads to an effective use of her floor space. in -- ineffective use of her floor space. her foot massage area would be empty while the body massage customers were waitingw. hen cost -- when customers
2:33 am
have to wait, they typically leave. they are trying to survive under the current economy. i understand that the product has been operating in the red since day one. the cash flow is negative. we are loved -- we asked the commission to allow us to reconfigure the floor space to reflect current customer demand. we would like to convert some of thefoo foot massage space and to flexible space where the business tend provideeither -- provide either foot massage or
2:34 am
body massage. with this conversion, we are hoping to capture body massage customers that we have been losing. we hope that we can weather this economic restore -- stomrm going forward into the future. i thank you for your consideration, commissioners. i thank you for your strength for lasting this long. i am happy to respond to any questions that he might have. >> is there any public comment on this item? the if not, public, that is
2:35 am
closed. -- if not public ancomment is closed. >> what constitutes a sequential permitting? >> how do you define sequential permitting? >> the-issue is that you can do with -- the negative issue is that you can do with many permits what you cannot do with one. >> that will not apply here? >> that have gone through the processes to change the
2:36 am
conditions. commissioner antonini: a seem to remember this. i was reading the report when we've grand did thethis i-- we granted this in january, 2009. this supposed to be two years. is this an extension of the cu? >> this is immoderation. it is coupled with the continuing hours of operation. they have not have any issues with how they have been operating. >> we were all going to about the extension. >> could require an informational presentation to the commission. >> i hope that everything has been all right.
2:37 am
i find it hard to believe that the demand is that graham said none o'clock on sunday nights, but i guess somebody is --that great at 9:00 on sunday nights, but i guess somebody is telling their. >> the massage parlor on adjustment streak has closed down. we have had a reade -- a reduction in the services since the application. >> if the statistics are correct in terms of the daily customer log that was submitted to us, the numbers are slightly different than what were presented to us. it is 43% -- am i reading the wrong statistic?
2:38 am
66%-35%, never mind. >> i appreciate having those statistics. many times when items come back at our request, we get verbage, but not fact. s. i appreciate that. >> commissioners, you have a motion before you for approval. ay >>e. commissioner sugaya: aye. president miguel: aye. >> of that motion passed unanimously. commissioners, you are on-19. -- on item 19.
2:39 am
>> good afternoon or evening a, members of the commission and staff. this is a discretion your review on parker avenue between geary boulevard and anza street. it includes a rear horizontal addition, a horizontal position and the increasing beunit count from two to three. this notification did not accurately represent this. the department required for their --further modifications.
2:40 am
the department recommendation is to not take the discretionary view. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. >> i am the son-in-law of the request or. we live on the north side of the
2:41 am
subject property. two units. my mother-in-law lives on top and we live underneath her. the project's sponsor about 11 years ago acquired the building. soon after, he wanted to develop his property. we passed some of the same time to develop our property so that he could maximize his develop -- investment. he would help us with plans and drawings and loans. he had an association with a commissioner that would help us with the permits. we were not going to go through that anyway. there was a downturn in the
2:42 am
real-estate market. moving forward to now, when he started this project again and when he received the plans, they were not quite accurate. we had a couple of concerns. one was the driveway, which has an encroachment on the sidewalk. all the properties on the block are set back 15 feet from the property line. his driveway would encroach out words an additional 5 feet from the property line. that is not very good because it is the only one like that on the whole block.
2:43 am
i have never done this before. as i listen to everybody, they all talked about the additional floor. this one in particular only has a three-floor setback. everybody says it is supposed to be 15 feet from the front of the building. this is 3 feet. i don't know why the planning department did not say anything about that. the main reason we are here is the sunlight as a flood of the mother-in-law.
2:44 am
mother- in-law. the show's the sunlight as it now it's the window where she lives. -- hits the window where she lives. it hits the kitchen. she spends almost all of her time there. she is not a very mobile and cannot get out. the sunlight hits her window. whatever amount they have raised, the additional floor would raise the sunlight shadow
2:45 am
by that amount. they have tried to do some setbacks. the part in the rear is not where the sunlight is creating the shadow. ste additional floor. the project sponsor is here to develop the property. after he sells the property, the mother-in-law -- that will be it. >> in favor of the der requestor.
2:46 am
>> if i just have a comment and i am not for or against, and do i speak now or at the very end? >> these neighbors of lines of the plot or not affected. planning decided that because it was covered over, it lost integrity. it was considered not historical. the cemetery was considered a
2:47 am
city landmark. s far as the panel front garage door. i did not have a problem with it. a question historic nature of it. >> thank you. are there any other speakers in favor of the der. >> in the evening. my name as greg ric. e. i live on the south side of the proposed project.
2:48 am
if the project does go through, it will be a big improvement to this area. that has been a huge eyesore for the last 10 years. my wife and i take a grave deal of pride in keeping our house in a great condition andif this goes through, i am sure it will be better. we have lived in our house since 1994. this project will cover a window that this on my property line. i realize the property line windows are not always protected. my house was still in 1941. the developer of this project has proposed to put a three fleck, by three floodlight -- 3
2:49 am
foot by 3 foot light well in. the original drawing still not show the -- did not show the light well. the new window would be covered by two stories of his addition. this would allow a little more light and air into the room. >> are there any additional speakers in favor of the review? if not, product sponsor? >> good evening, commissioners.
2:50 am
unlike the 900 block of elizabeth, this project presents no exceptional or action ordinary circumstance. the project in terms of theheight, -- the height, the top story of the request or is higher than the project. my client has agreed to set the top stories about 5 feet. the 16-foot section seems to be at issue. if that 16 feet were set the, my client will lose the entire second bedroom on top of the unit. what would be a two-bedroom unit
2:51 am
that could house a family would be essentially a 1-bedroom townhouse the cannot accommodate the family. -- penthouse could not accommodate a family. any suggestion that the setback be 5 feet along side the property line will destroy that bedroom. we are not even speaking about loss of a view. the window looks into tha wall. any potential aboutloss of light, we are talking about a couple of hours in the morning, in december. i think the staff recommendation in that regard is
2:52 am
correct. there is no loss of view at all. a loss of light in the morning hours of december. this is when you are talking about adding a full-bedroom unit. my client was willing and offered the client where they had a genuine concerns about light in her kitchen. she was not interested in commendation. i do not know why. with respect was sidewalk, i do
2:53 am
not fanfare as an issue. i think the staff was correct in noting that because the sidewalk was 22 feet wide, feisty about this thought: to be the end of the world. -- 5 feet out is not going to be the end of the world. we are only talking about adding one additional continue that. -- renting unit. >> speakers in favor of the project sponsor. >> this may be a misnomer. i am the project sponsor. i own the property. >> can you state their name for the record? >> i am john berry.
2:54 am
my wife and i own the property. we bought the property nine, 10, for a 11 years ago. the real letter that i bought the from was never on the planning commission r --eali -- realitor on thethat i bought it from was never on the planning commission that i knew of. and never told him i would sell the property. i would never sell the property. i developed it because my daughter who is a schoolteacher
2:55 am
the live there with her fiancee who will probably some day be her husband. the top floor is set back 5 feet or more. that is the second 88,kbedroom. he receives 5 feet from the whole lot line. we have one bedroom that is thought suitable
2:56 am
there is no few trees or anything along the side of my house. that would have been a solution. thank you. >> speakers in favor of the project sponsor. >> i am an elementary school teacher in the richmond district but this is the top unit of the building. currently proposed is a 2- bedroom unit.
2:57 am
this is the only unit that we will be able to afford. this would not be a good option for us. we would like to get married and have a family. >> speakers in favor.
2:58 am
>> this is the first time that we have seen the project sponsors daughter. if she needed to raise a family, she could live in one of the other two units. it is not like she has to be on the top floor. the other thing is that when we're talking about the drawings, had as we were listening to this, this is the same person who is trying this
2:59 am
project. thank you. >> project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> my daughter cannot afford to have her and her fiance living in a three-bedroom, two-


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on